Libs in this forum seem extremely angry

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

I think in most cases you probably mistake frustration for anger.

Can you expand on that please?

Perhaps you can. What are these "libs" saying that make you believe there's such anger - other than disagreeing with your viewpoint..

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In order to make you happy I thought I would respond to your post.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
It probably would have been more accurate to say "foreclosures are at an all-time high since the Great Depression." Of course most people wouldn't try to spin the economy as being fantastic ... compared to the 1930's.

1. Foreclosure rates: In Cali the rate hit a 4 1/2 year high. So much for 1930's type figures huh?
How about this from a 9-14-06 article by the AP "Even with the increase, the new foreclosure figure is still low by historical standards and thus not overly worrisome to lenders. But it suggests that some borrowers are feeling pinched. " Link
Please post me a link that shows the numbers any where near what you claim. First it was "all time high" then it became "1930" next it will be "2001"
One article is all I ask for, good luck finding it, I tried

I stand corrected. While foreclosures nationwide are up sharply, especially for ARMs, they are not close to all-time highs. The industry concern is about the upwards trend, not the rate itself.

Also rebutted in one of the threads you're avoiding, the unemployment rate is artificially low since there are so many people who've abandoned hope of finding jobs. Were we to measure it the same way as our peers, the actual rate is reportedly in the 8-9% range.

Already talked about that to death, post some proof of your "actual rate" claim and how that rate is different than under Clinton

Yes, addressed above. The ball's in your court.

It's been well-documented that NCLB was under-funded, forces artifical focus on testing instead of learning, and is widely regarded by education professionals as a failure. The claim that we'll improve education by taking it away from the trained professionals is absurd. One need only look at the parents who have imposed such gems as Intelligent Design [sic] to see this.

My sister in-law is a teacher and we have talked about this bill a little bit.
The "teaching the tests" argument goes round and round. However, if we don't grade results via tests how do we know what kids are learning and if they are learning at the rate they should be? Now the teachers unions are opposed to ANY type of testing, even testing of teachers to see if they are qualified.

More misdirection. They are obviously more likely to oppose having themselves tested than in testing their students. Also, kindly show me evidence that the teachers unions are "opposed to ANY type of testing". They are opposed to testing becoming the end unto itself rather than one of many tools to assess students' progress.

As far as the intelligent design thing you posted, don't try to cloud the issue by bringing up the one or two school districts in the country that have tried this crap, and if I believe right in every case they ID people have lost to the evolution people.

Your claim is that parents are somehow inherently more qualified to make education decisions than professional educators. I offered one easy example of how ridiculous that claim was.

Unfortunately, BushCo's plan did absolutely nothing to address Social Security solvency. Indeed, it made it worse, which was apparently part of the plan. The BushCo plan was a gift to Wall Street, nothing more.

Like I said, NO ONE has created any kind of plan that will solve the problem. The only working solution is a privatization plan. Otherwise there is no way to come up with the $27 trillion dollars more in expenditures the system will need, in excess of the money it takes in, over the next 75 years. That figure comes from the Social Security Administration itself.

Nonsense. You continue to parrot the propaganda point without addressing the real issues. Privatization does absolutely nothing -- nothing -- to address the coming shortfall in Social Security funding. In fact, it makes it worse by removing Social Security's funding. The entire premise was a red herring, a bogus sound bite to distract people from real potential solutions. It would have bankrupted Social Security while generating a windfall for Wall Street. The only real working solution will require some combination of increasing the retirement age and FICA withholding, both by increasing the percentage taken and eliminating the withholding cap.

I love the way you contradict yourself here. First you acknowledge Clinton's proposal. Then in the next paragraph, you claim the Dems had none. What you really mean, of course, is that the Dems have no plans you personally like, therefore you deny their existence. It's the same crock you pull over and over, "The Dems have no plan for [insert talking point here]." ROFL!

I love this one. The Hillary plan was voted down 99-0 I believe. You notice I said "workable" proposal. A plan that loses 99-0 is not a workable plan.

As I said, on health care, education and Social Security the Democrats have not introduced one workable plan to solve any of the problems we face. If I am wrong all you have to do is find a link to one plan suggested by them that would actually work.

Which you will automatically dismiss as unworkable, simply because it comes from the Democrats. Workable is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Republicans can do ANYTHING they want right now... and yet they haven't accomplished anything... that's the point. If I am wrong, feel free to name their accomplishments.. Immigration, social security, changing oil dependency, ethics reform?

Tax cut.

Has helped people/country and the economy tremendously.

LMAO. No one but the most ardent partisan hacks have the balls to claim this lie any more. Kudos. :thumbsup:

The most under-reported aspect of President Bush?s 2002-2003 tax cuts is in the number of Americans who now pay no taxes as a result of those cuts. The IRS released some data last month that shows the astounding progressivity of Bush?s tax cuts. According to the new data, the top half of taxpayers ranked by income paid 96.70 percent of the individual income taxes paid in 2004, compared to 86.05 percent in 1949, 89.35 percent in 1959, and 90.27 percent in 1969. The share of income taxes paid by the bottom half declined to 3.30 percent. In 1949 the income tax burden of the bottom half was 13.95 percent. The Joint Economic Committee report on the numbers can be found here:

http://www.house.gov/jec/news/news2006/pr109-94.pdf

Contrary to what liberals have been saying, while wealthy people did get their taxes cut, it was not ?at the expense? of poor people at all. In fact, because of these cuts, most people need to make at least $34,000 to pay any federal income tax. The under $30,000 range only brings in 3% of taxes collected.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Contrary to what liberals have been saying, while wealthy people did get their taxes cut, it was not ?at the expense? of poor people at all. In fact, because of these cuts, most people need to make at least $34,000 to pay any federal income tax. The under $30,000 range only brings in 3% of taxes collected.

Nice read.

This should put to an end the nonsense thrown about the tax cuts and flat out lies and BS of "tax cuts for the wealthy, killing the middle man" stuff.

Those cuts should be trumpeted as one of the greatest accomplishments of this administration and house/congress. Because if you look at it with FACTS, it was a reduction in taxes for all and benefits the lower half the most. I would also postulate that most all members on this board are in the upper half with AGI of 30K or more.

 

[1EZduzit]

Trumpeted?? LMAO!!

Trumpeted like the pied piper.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Contrary to what liberals have been saying, while wealthy people did get their taxes cut, it was not ?at the expense? of poor people at all. In fact, because of these cuts, most people need to make at least $34,000 to pay any federal income tax. The under $30,000 range only brings in 3% of taxes collected.

Nice read.

This should put to an end the nonsense thrown about the tax cuts and flat out lies and BS of "tax cuts for the wealthy, killing the middle man" stuff.

Those cuts should be trumpeted as one of the greatest accomplishments of this administration and house/congress. Because if you look at it with FACTS, it was a reduction in taxes for all and benefits the lower half the most. I would also postulate that most all members on this board are in the upper half with AGI of 30K or more.

It wont put an end to anything. They use the "tax cuts for the rich" to confuse the ignorant. While it is true that they were tax cuts for the rich, they were also tax cuts for the poor. Of course the rich got more taxes back, they pay MORE in taxes, so wouldnt that make sense? If I remember correctly, didn't the poor people that don't pay any taxes still get a refund?

 

[1EZduzit]

God we have a lot of angry conservatives when the subject of taxes comes up.

I guess none of you are old enough to remember Leona Hemsley.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
God we have a lot of angry conservatives when the subject of taxes comes up.

I guess none of you are old enough to remember Leona Hemsley.

Hey, make your own thread, this one is about angry libs that somehow turned into a debate on taxes.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
God we have a lot of angry conservatives when the subject of taxes comes up.

I guess none of you are old enough to remember Leona Hemsley.

Hey, make your own thread, this one is about angry libs that somehow turned into a debate on taxes.

If you'd think outside of the box (if you can), you might notice that taxes has nothing to do with "angry libs". :laugh:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
God we have a lot of angry conservatives when the subject of taxes comes up.

I guess none of you are old enough to remember Leona Hemsley.

Hey, make your own thread, this one is about angry libs that somehow turned into a debate on taxes.

If you'd think outside of the box (if you can), you might notice that taxes has nothing to do with "angry libs". :laugh:

And if you would lighten up, you might notice that it was a joke

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
God we have a lot of angry conservatives when the subject of taxes comes up.

I guess none of you are old enough to remember Leona Hemsley.

Hey, make your own thread, this one is about angry libs that somehow turned into a debate on taxes.

If you'd think outside of the box (if you can), you might notice that taxes has nothing to do with "angry libs". :laugh:

And if you would lighten up, you might notice that it was a joke

Opps, sorry. I retract that sarcastic comment I made and raise you one apology.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
God we have a lot of angry conservatives when the subject of taxes comes up.

I guess none of you are old enough to remember Leona Hemsley.

Hey, make your own thread, this one is about angry libs that somehow turned into a debate on taxes.

If you'd think outside of the box (if you can), you might notice that taxes has nothing to do with "angry libs". :laugh:

And if you would lighten up, you might notice that it was a joke

Opps, sorry. I retract that sarcastic comment I made and raise you one apology.

Eh, its easy to get caught up in all the insults that fly around on this board and attack a newcomer to the thread, I've done it too.

 

[Fayd]

i think people should stop calling all liberals democrats, or all conservatives republicans. they're closely linked, but not the same.

and i think people should also stop making up stupid names for other parties. like libs. seriously, it's dumb.

besides, democrats already chose a fitting mascot

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Contrary to what liberals have been saying, while wealthy people did get their taxes cut, it was not ?at the expense? of poor people at all. In fact, because of these cuts, most people need to make at least $34,000 to pay any federal income tax. The under $30,000 range only brings in 3% of taxes collected.

Nice read.

This should put to an end the nonsense thrown about the tax cuts and flat out lies and BS of "tax cuts for the wealthy, killing the middle man" stuff.

Those cuts should be trumpeted as one of the greatest accomplishments of this administration and house/congress. Because if you look at it with FACTS, it was a reduction in taxes for all and benefits the lower half the most. I would also postulate that most all members on this board are in the upper half with AGI of 30K or more.

It wont put an end to anything. They use the "tax cuts for the rich" to confuse the ignorant. While it is true that they were tax cuts for the rich, they were also tax cuts for the poor. Of course the rich got more taxes back, they pay MORE in taxes, so wouldnt that make sense? If I remember correctly, didn't the poor people that don't pay any taxes still get a refund?

This is a bunch of misleading hogwash.

The tax cuts were a re-distribution of wealth to the top from the middle and near-top, and to the extent it increased the deficit, paid for by later generations, and to the expense it forced spending cuts, it was paid for by service reductions for the poor. Look at everythinng from less money for food programs to educational aid.

The argument that the 'rich get more cuts because they pay more' is particularly misleading, because it hides the fact that they got more cuts in excess of the proportion that they pay more. For example, if they got a billion dollars in cuts and everyone else got a peny, the same argument would apply - they got more because they pay more. You see, the argument *assumes*, wrongly, that the cuts only were proportional.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is a bunch of misleading hogwash.

The tax cuts were a re-distribution of wealth to the top from the middle and near-top, and to the extent it increased the deficit, paid for by later generations, and to the expense it forced spending cuts, it was paid for by service reductions for the poor. Look at everythinng from less money for food programs to educational aid.

The argument that the 'rich get more cuts because they pay more' is particularly misleading, because it hides the fact that they got more cuts in excess of the proportion that they pay more. For example, if they got a billion dollars in cuts and everyone else got a peny, the same argument would apply - they got more because they pay more. You see, the argument *assumes*, wrongly, that the cuts only were proportional.

Proof?

And do state your income, age and tax bracket because you are totally full of crap.

Facts to a liberal are like garlic to a vampire. They scream and scurry to their hole.

What part of this do you not understand? I'm serious. what part of these cuts do you not get? Are you really that poor? If so then you aren't paying any taxes.

And even if you are that poor. Go better yourself.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is a bunch of misleading hogwash.

The tax cuts were a re-distribution of wealth to the top from the middle and near-top, and to the extent it increased the deficit, paid for by later generations, and to the expense it forced spending cuts, it was paid for by service reductions for the poor. Look at everythinng from less money for food programs to educational aid.

The argument that the 'rich get more cuts because they pay more' is particularly misleading, because it hides the fact that they got more cuts in excess of the proportion that they pay more. For example, if they got a billion dollars in cuts and everyone else got a peny, the same argument would apply - they got more because they pay more. You see, the argument *assumes*, wrongly, that the cuts only were proportional.

Proof?

And do state your income, age and tax bracket because you are totally full of crap.

Facts to a liberal are like garlic to a vampire. They scream and scurry to their hole.

What part of this do you not understand? I'm serious. what part of these cuts do you not get? Are you really that poor? If so then you aren't paying any taxes.

And even if you are that poor. Go better yourself.

Put away the talking points and educate yourself. Craig234 is exactly right, on all counts.

 

[Pabster]

Of course the liberals here are extremely angry. They've failed to win an election for years now, despite the massive influx of Hollywood dollars and 85% of the media promoting their agenda. You'd be unhappy too!

That said, it isn't just the liberals here. Take a look around. They're all the same.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Speak for yourself please.

Just because you and the rest of the Republicans hate America doesn't mean the rest of do too.

I don't hate america. I hate the pussification of it (lack of personal responsibility and the inability to do what is right for the good of others) and will vote accordingly to continue this increase in the quality of life for America.

Since I don't know what is the (good) of others, I will allow them the freedom to pursue happiness without my interference. And I think you do hate America. The America that attempts to grant equal rights and justice to all people.

 

[LunarRay]

I could care less which side ends up with control because either side will continue to destroy the country.. One by waging war till we are destroyed by war and the other by spending us into oblivion... we can't win ... We as a nation can't afford what either side will give us even though one side's platform IS really needed while the other side's is best left alone.. so in retrospect... perhaps I'd prefer going down getting what we need than what we don't need... Vote Left of Center.. hehehe

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Of course the liberals here are extremely angry. They've failed to win an election for years now, despite the massive influx of Hollywood dollars and 85% of the media promoting their agenda. You'd be unhappy too!

That said, it isn't just the liberals here. Take a look around. They're all the same.

And it looks like they may not even win this ONE! There is a lot of news and polls that are making it look a lot tighter than anyone would have thought.

There is even a poll showing that Maryland is TIED right now. If this is true I don't see how the Dems have ANY chance of winning the Senate, especially if they have to use money inorder to win this seat.

In the house things are even more of a mess. Polling numbers are ALL over the place. We see polls in some races vary as much as 10% between polls. (i.e. the Dem is leading by 5 in one poll and losing by 5 in another)

I don't hold much hope for the house, but I will not be shocked if the Republicans can keep it.

Apparently, Rove thinks we will keep both the house and the senate, but who knows if that is just talk or reality.

One things in 100% certain, we have no idea how effective this massive get out the vote effort of the Republicans will have on election day. All it takes is about 2% points in their favor and the house splits down the middle or goes our way.

It could happen

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I could care less which side ends up with control because either side will continue to destroy the country.. One by waging war till we are destroyed by war and the other by spending us into oblivion... we can't win ... We as a nation can't afford what either side will give us even though one side's platform IS really needed while the other side's is best left alone.. so in retrospect... perhaps I'd prefer going down getting what we need than what we don't need... Vote Left of Center.. hehehe

I agree with what you're trying to say, but which party is which in the bolded quote?

With regard to the subject, I'd consider myself a liberal and I'm extremely angry. I won't list all the reasons I'm angry with the current aministration, because they've all been said before. However, I'm furious at the state of American politics, with the negative attack ads, lack of honest debate, deception, scandals, etc (although, I will never use this as an excuse not to gain as much information as I can and go out and vote). You can blame both parties for that bullshit. Frankly, everyone should be angry. If you aren't angry at the state of American politics, then you aren't paying attention, or you just don't give a ******.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: CellarDoor

With regard to the subject, I'd consider myself a liberal and I'm extremely angry. I won't list all the reasons I'm angry with the current aministration, because they've all been said before. However, I'm furious at the state of American politics, with the negative attack ads, lack of honest debate, deception, scandals, etc (although, I will never use this as an excuse not to gain as much information as I can and go out and vote). You can blame both parties for that bullshit. Frankly, everyone should be angry. If you aren't angry at the state of American politics, then you aren't paying attention, or you just don't give a ******.

Nice thought-out post, Cellar. No insults, and you offer constructive advice. You and I might disagree all day long on issues, but the forum would be a better place if people followed this post's example.

I don't consider someone calling me a conservative to be an insult. Do you consider liberal or lib an insult?

 

[palindrome]

Originally posted by: senseamp
All Americans should be angry at where this country has descended in the last 14 years.

Fixed

 

[palindrome]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Speak for yourself please.

Just because you and the rest of the Republicans hate America doesn't mean the rest of do too.

I don't hate america. I hate the pussification of it (lack of personal responsibility and the inability to do what is right for the good of others) and will vote accordingly to continue this increase in the quality of life for America.

When's the last time a Republican took responsibility for anything?

Foley ("Oh, a Priest molested me. No wait, it's the alcohol!")



When's the last time a Republican cared squat for America, in general, instead of the corporation keeping him in office?

When was the last time you saw a middle-class Democrat run for office. It was the last never ago, right?

 

[palindrome]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Just an observation, the libs in this forum seem extraordinarily hostile lately. I think it's because they are afraid the democrats will lose yet another election. What do you think?

People on the left including most media are predicting victory for the demos. People on the right are saying it's too close to call. Sounds like the '04 elections to me.

I think this is a different set of variables. If I had to guess how it'd turn out right now, I'd say the dems will get control of one side of congress. But the conservative base came out in droves and really upset the lib polsters and their media friends in '04.

Have you read your own post? You seem DAMN angry, bitter, and you are trying to provoke people... Plus, you seem to be into conspiracies like a "liberal media" etc...

Doesn't seem bitter to me. Are you sure you are reading the same thread?

And yes, there is such thing as liberal and conservative media.... Have you not watched ABC or CBS for the past few elections?